Upon Further Review, The North Runway Proposal Could Fly

MICHAEL MAYO COMMENTARY

For the past 15 years, the Broward County Commission has centered most of its thinking on lengthening the existing south runway.

After reading the latest in a long line of impact studies, I've got one question: Why?

Why has everyone been so gung-ho about a plan that would make more nearby residents' lives miserable and actually reduce the number of runways when there's a cheaper alternative whose biggest drawback is moving some airport businesses, like cargo and private jet facilities?

This is how the debate should really be framed. It's not about no-expansion vs. expansion.

It's about whom would we rather uproot and inconvenience: people who live nearby or airport businesses?

The commission's preferred plan, to be considered again at a June 5 meeting, is to expand the south runway to 8,000 feet, extending it over Federal Highway and the FEC railroad tracks and permanently closing the crosswind diagonal runway.

That would take the airport from three runways (one long, one medium and one short) to two long runways. It would also make the lives of some 1,000 nearby residents a lot noisier, to the point that the county would offer them money to move or soundproof their homes with the promise not to sue.

There's another option in the mix, which seems to me to make more sense. It's the so-called parallel north runway plan, which would build a new 7,721-foot runway north of the existing main runway.

It would leave the current 5,276-foot south runway intact and close the much-loathed diagonal runway, currently restricted to emergencies and busy times.

This plan would give the airport three fully functioning runways: two long ones suitable for the largest passenger and cargo jets and one short one, suitable for small private and commuter planes.

For a long time, every time the north parallel runway option was mentioned some people would object because of safety concerns.

But the latest Draft Environmental Impact Statement, done by the consulting group Landrum & Brown on behalf of the Federal Aviation Administration, deemed the north parallel runway option feasible.

The Draft EIS estimates the overall cost of the north parallel option to be about $230 million cheaper than the south alternative, $462 million compared to $695 million.

The Draft EIS says the north parallel option would serve the airport's projected capacity needs through late 2021. The south plan would serve projected demand until 2024.

Whether these numbers and projections are accurate are another story. But if you do accept the projections, then logic suggests the north runway option should be preferable.

The Draft EIS indicates the north runway would have less impact on nearby residents, wildlife and roads. Unlike the south plan, it wouldn't force the closure of a hotel (the Wyndham) and a road (part of the airport's Perimeter Road), nor would it have to be elevated over (or force the relocation of) railroad tracks and U.S. 1. Nor would it cause so much trouble for the Melaleuca Gardens neighborhood of Dania Beach, about 400 homes just south of the airport near Griffin Road.

The north plan would force the move of cargo and private jet businesses on the north airfield. According to the Draft EIS, "a majority of the facilities could be relocated to the west side of the airfield and maintain functionality. Facilities could also be relocated south of [the south runway]."

Why has the north option been muted all along?

Good question. Many Melaleuca Gardens residents think the south runway is really a pretext for the county to get them out, that their waterfront land could then be used for marine or other business development. Their suspicions were fueled when developers and businessmen bussed scores of supporters of the south runway plan to a public hearing earlier this month.

The more I see and read, the more I think the residents might be right.

Michael Mayo's column appears Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday. Read him online every weekday at Sun-Sentinel.com/mayoblog. Reach him at mmayo@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4508.